view_imageRetrieve an image from a workspace and return it as MCP image content, applying optional resizing or byte constraints.
Return a workspace image as MCP image content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| max_bytes | No | ||
| max_width | No | ||
| max_height | No | ||
| auto_resize | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| error | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds the output format ('MCP image content') which is useful but not substantive behavioral context. It does not disclose error behavior, side effects, or resizing logic, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action and output type. It earns its place but provides little beyond the barest statement of purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With five parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description should compensate by explaining parameter behavior or usage context. It does neither. While an output schema exists, the tool remains significantly under-described for an agent to invoke it correctly, especially regarding resizing and byte limits.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the five parameters (path, max_bytes, max_width, max_height, auto_resize). An agent has no way to know what these parameters control or how they affect the output.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('workspace image'), and specifies the output format ('MCP image content'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_file (text) and list_dir (directory listing), though it does not explicitly name those siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent is not told to use it for image files or that read_file handles text. The context is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.